THE CHALLENGE TO FILIPINO HISTORIANS

One striking fact about Philippine history is that it has never been written by Filipinos. It is true, some Filipinos names appear on the covers of a few Philippine history books. But practically all those Filipinos merely rely upon, summarize or compile not only the works buts also the viewpoints of foreign writers. Perhaps this is inevitable, considering that it was foreigners, not Filipinos, who until recently had been making Filipino history. This fact of foreigners making Philippine history for Filipinos has very interesting effects even to this day. For instance, we have always been told that it was Magellan, not Filipinos, who discovered the Philippines. So deeply has this been ingrained in the Filipino mind that sixteen years after independence, Filipinos still almost completely rely on foreigners to discover and catalogue the bones and necklaces of their ancestors. Of course, Filipinos are not necessarily better historians than Spaniards, Americans or Englishmen. And history is supposed to be an objective science. But since all men without exception cannot help being subjective in one sense or another, it seems that objectivity can be attained only by hearing views from both sides. To get the whole truth, one must hear not only the shouts of the victors but also the cries of the vanquished. Take the case of the great Magellan. It is written that when he stopped at one of the small islands in the Western Pacific, some of the natives stole a small boat belonging to his fleet. Immediately he called them thieves, and named their islands Ladrones Islands. Shortly, thereafter, he reached our shores and without the slightest by your leave, he started to claim the whole archipelago by force. Quite naturally, he did not call himself and special name. Nor did Filipino chieftain, historian or commentator. And to this day our children are taught that Magellan was simply a brave soldier and one of the greatest navigators of all time. Then, there were the moros from the south. They were reported to have raided communities just a few miles away from their homes. Quite positively, they were called pirates. But, although the Spaniards sailed tens of thousands of miles away from their own country to seize and subjugate a completely foreign nation, there is no record of Moros calling the Spaniards a similar name. Even today, many Filipinos would take such novel views as an affront to their intelligence or an insult to their sensibilities. For did not the Spaniards come to Christianize the Filipinos? Indeed, we teach our children that the Spaniards came to the Philippines for three reasons: evangelization, political aggrandizement and commercialism:

Cross, Scepter and Money. To the colonizer, perhaps it was a happy and most fortunate combination. And even the most respected thinkers today do not see anything grievously wrong with the idea. In fact, they write and talk about the romantic saga of the Sword and the Cross. How would Christ have looked if He had come to this world in the company of Roman Generals and Jewish businessmen? There is no record of such question being asked either in Philippine history or in commentaries thereon. What is recorded is that the Filipinos are a very impressionable people. Exactly one week after Magellan landed in Cebu, 800 Filipinos pagans were baptized. History does not record how many times Magellan fired the cannons of his ships before that just to greet the Filipinos or to satisfy their curiosity. But it looked as if the Spaniards were at the point of discovering a method more effective than Christs: redemption without too much crucifixion. Unfortunately, a few days later, Magellan happened to be killed in battle and some of his men became fresh with Cebuana girls. The newly baptized Filipinos lost no time in inviting the Spaniards to a rare version of Filipino hospitality from which very few Spaniard came out alive. Up to this day, commentators on Philippine history appear to be unaware of any impracticality in the partnership between the Sword and the Cross. Our history books are filled with accounts of how colonizers like Martin de Goti (???) would ask Filipino rulers to give up their thrones, swear allegiance and pay tribute to the king of Spain, in a manner almost as simple and natural as though the colonizers were just asking them to about a minor nuisance. When some of the Filipino rulers refused, they were naturally wiped out just as one would naturally wipe out a plague that stood in the way of human progress and happiness. No one recorded the reaction, the astonishment, the conflict, the pathos and the human drama that happened in the souls, the families and the people of the local chiefs. This man was a great Spanish conquistador that, a great colonizer that a great Spanish Governor-General. He pacified various regions, he commanded naval fleets, he built the city walls, and he constructed churches. To this day we and our children consider them the greatest men of that period. But who took the pains to record the number of Filipinos killed, how they were forced to build the ships, how they were wrested from their families, how they and their children were impoverished, how they were forced to carry the stones and build the walls and churches? Ah but why bother about them? Are they not the properly unknown ingredients of a common destiny and common glory? Philippine history pointedly records in a number of places how costly it was for the Spanish Crown to keep the Philippines. Of course, no one should begrudge the Spaniards that credit. But no mention is made of how costly it was for the Filipinos! How could history have missed this otherwise fruitful mutuality of

feelings? Thus, Filipino descendants have always felt deeply obliged to the conquerors of their ancestors. Finally, historians make a summation of judgment on Spanish colonization in the Philippines. Eminent scholars, scientists and writers are consulted and quoted. They come from various parts of the worlds: Reinsch, Jagor, La Perouse, Bourne, LeRoy, etc., etc., etc, (??? check names). The majority opinion seems to be that Spain was a remarkable success. Who is to quarrel with such a judgment? But the interesting fact is that the man most concerned and most affected in the issue the Filipino was not asked to render his opinion. It is merely recorded that the Filipinos desire to be free blew out, like some semiextinct volcano, in sporadic eruptions. So used to this treatment have we been that in world affairs today many Filipinos would sooner quote the worlds big men than speak for their own little selves. Be that as it may, towards the end of the nineteenth century, a limit to Filipino impressionableness was reached. Filipinos finally decide to make their own history and perhaps write it too. But unfortunately (or fortunately) the Filipinos found themselves tossed from the lap of the great Christian civilizer to that of a great Democrat teacher. So, again, it was to be made and written by somebody else for them. The spotlight was focused on Paris and Washington. Before they knew it, the Filipinos were purchased at a little more than two dollars a head. Then there was the close-up of President McKinley, sleepless in his bedroom, undergoing an ordeal of conscience: What to do with the Philippines? Finally came the heavenly inspiration: America should keep the Philippines in order to educate and civilize the backwards Filipinos. (How irresistible the Filipinos have been as an object of foreign generosity!) Thus, history amply highlighted the unprecedented liberality and progressives of President McKinley. And no one saw the need of probing any Filipino bedroom to find out what agony, if any, transpired in the heart and mind of the little man from Kawit, or of the paralytic in the hammock, or of that bearded revolutionary who refused to surrender for so long. And no one ever wondered aloud what, if the only purpose of the Americans was to teach and civilize the Filipinos why did they not just make a quite proposal to General Aguinaldo? Why did they have to pay $20,000,000 to purchase the Philippines? Why did they have to send 126,468 soldiers to fight Filipinos in more than 2,811 battles, to spend Pesos 600,000,000 and kill 16,000 Filipino soldiers, just to be in a position to help us?. Could not the Americans have attained their purely altruistic ends simply by acting courteously towards General Aguinaldo, then, just as the top American officials of Subic and Clark Field do now, and especially at every birthday of the old General? Then cane the third intruder. What blunders made the intrusion possible so that the invaders were more surprised at their own success than the self-

appointed defenders to the untold misery of those who were supposed to be defended? Who was responsible for those blunders? (Ah, but?) Why bother about these things in the light of the glorious liberation? The Japanese were over-ambitious, too many Filipinos were incompetent (although they redeemed themselves in Bataan) but did not the great General return as he promised and settle all scores? Why dwell on the darker aspects of our history? What good can come of it? Are we not well enough off, without discovering and reopening old wounds? Indeed, we are not without some rewards. For the gift of Christianity, no suffering would have been too great. And in many respects America enriched our democracy and humanity. Unfortunately, this faith and this enrichment were implanted among us with congenital defects. Perhaps it would have been too much to expect more. But unless we realize these defects by tracing their historical roots, we might still lose what we have gained at so dear a price. The historical defect of our Christianity arises from the fact that it was in one way or another imposed upon us by force. Our very churches were built by forced labor. To a great extent, then Christianity became for us a set of external rituals, or an alternative to social ostracism, or a haven of opportunity, or at best an anting-anting against eternal fire. It has not quite become, as it should, an all-possessing supercharging way of life that ignites the mind with conviction and consume the heart with a passion that enslaves only because it liberates. We should, therefore, take a second, careful look at this priceless heritage. What was previously thrust into our hands by force, we should now reach out to in freedom in our own fashion. What was impressed upon us by the power of external rite and ceremony we should re-absorb with the warm embrace of understanding, conviction and self-possession. In that way, Christian Filipinos will not only be firmly rooted deep in this universal faith but they may also hop to blossom in it with their own distinctive flower. And this they can hope to do only if, under a regime of freedom, they learn to look at truth, past and present, squarely in the face. The Philippines and America have embarked on a partnership of freedom and human equality. Today, this partnership is by no means free of irritants and anomalies. Many of these problems grew out of the hypocrisies, weaknesses, and misapprehension of the past. For instance, we have been taught to be grateful to America for having ruled us merely for our own good. But the fact is America occupied the Philippines principally to protect and promote her interest. Moreover, by assuming sovereignty over the Philippines without the consent of the Filipinos, America assumed full responsibility for everything that happened to them. Our present social, economic and political problems arose directly or indirectly from

American policies and actions during the American regime. It is the grave obligation of America, then, under justice, to help the Filipinos solve these problems. Such problems, therefore, as those on war damage or foreign aid are not lovers quarrels as some Filipino officials might want to describe them. They are problems of justice and conflict of interest. To solve our problems with America, we must grow out of that adolescent mentality characteristic of our outlook on our colonial past. Nor can we really presume with certitude that we are now more free and more democratic than we would have been if America never intervened in our peoples revolution against foreign domination. This is so, if only because of the contradiction inherent in America colonial policy; to teach the Filipinos freedom by taking it away from them. On the other hand, in certain respects American influence has enriched our democracy. Exactly where, how, to what extent it is so terribly important for us to determine. For while in some respects we have undoubtedly improved, in others we have degenerated or will degenerate, because of American influence. Hence, certain adaptations and modifications have to be made, if American influence is really to enrich and not deform Philippine democracy. But we cannot find the true answers, if we go on viewing our past like rah-rah boys or colonial apologists or starry-eyed lovers or wistful maidens. This is the great challenge to Filipino historians today. And if it might prove too late for Filipinos to write their past history, they could at least learn how to read it with their own eyes.